Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick

Bort has washed his hands of this game.




and it's his only good game, sucha sad shame he left it ti wither and die

The people saying that INT CBs shouldn't be able to tackle are dumb. I build top of the line INT CBs that also have 70 tackling, 40 strength, +15% MT chance, and 15 Sure Tackler. That's as much tackling and strength as a good number of non-INT CBs. The issue is that CBs that can tackle are just too easy to build.

I can say "the minimum tackling numbers I need are 40 strength, 70 tackling, and +15% MT chance in order to have a good tackling score, now let me see what I can do with the other stuff to push a certain roll(s)." For an INT build that means pushing the INT score. For a non-INT CB, that means pushing the PD score and possibly the KL score.

If someone is running around with a CB with 60 tackling, 40 strength, and 0 MT% who is built to get INTs, the issue isn't that they are an INT CB and shouldn't be able to tackle. The issue is that they suck at building CBs and the shouldn't be able to tackle.

Originally posted by lemdog
I would think hood is most balanced with 58%\42% and a 9td/4int

Hood passing %:
Excluding sack numbers: 166 / 459 = 36.17%
Including sack numbers: 172/ 459 = 37.47%

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024


I can say "the minimum tackling numbers I need are 40 strength, 70 tackling, and +15% MT chance in order to have a good tackling score, now let me see what I can do with the other stuff to push a certain roll(s)." For an INT build that means pushing the INT score. For a non-INT CB, that means pushing the PD score and possibly the KL score.


won't a 40 strength 70 tackling 15% MT CB just make teams want to run even more? I build 55+ strength 80+ tackle 15%MT CB's that still miss a fair share of tackles against pHB's.


Physical Attributes
Strength: 55.2
Speed: 156 (+55)
Agility: 93.39
Jumping: 61.97
Stamina: 61.45
Vision: 86.97
Confidence: 35.26

Football Skills
Tackling: 82.2

15% make tackle, 15 Sure Tackler and still missed more than 1 tackle a game last season.


So if the INT CB's that are being built with even less than 40 Strength and 70 tackling are the norm, and INT's are way up... why would anyone want to pass when they can just run all day?

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
The people saying that INT CBs shouldn't be able to tackle are dumb. I build top of the line INT CBs that also have 70 tackling, 40 strength, +15% MT chance, and 15 Sure Tackler. That's as much tackling and strength as a good number of non-INT CBs. The issue is that CBs that can tackle are just too easy to build.

I can say "the minimum tackling numbers I need are 40 strength, 70 tackling, and +15% MT chance in order to have a good tackling score, now let me see what I can do with the other stuff to push a certain roll(s)." For an INT build that means pushing the INT score. For a non-INT CB, that means pushing the PD score and possibly the KL score.

If someone is running around with a CB with 60 tackling, 40 strength, and 0 MT% who is built to get INTs, the issue isn't that they are an INT CB and shouldn't be able to tackle. The issue is that they suck at building CBs and the shouldn't be able to tackle.

The thing with PD CBs is that they don't really get very many deflections, especially in single coverage.

Originally posted by Bane
won't a 40 strength 70 tackling 15% MT CB just make teams want to run even more? I build 55+ strength 80+ tackle 15%MT CB's that still miss a fair share of tackles against pHB's.


Physical Attributes
Strength: 55.2
Speed: 156 (+55)
Agility: 93.39
Jumping: 61.97
Stamina: 61.45
Vision: 86.97
Confidence: 35.26

Football Skills
Tackling: 82.2

15% make tackle, 15 Sure Tackler and still missed more than 1 tackle a game last season.


So if the INT CB's that are being built with even less than 40 Strength and 70 tackling are the norm, and INT's are way up... why would anyone want to pass when they can just run all day?

You can easily get by with 40/60 strength/tackle and have little issue making most tackles.

Originally posted by DarkRogue
The thing with PD CBs is that they don't really get very many deflections, especially in single coverage.

Absolutely true.
PD CB who could win 40% in single cover is amazing player.
That's why people chasing for int.

Originally posted by aaasahi
Hood passing %:
Excluding sack numbers: 166 / 459 = 36.17%
Including sack numbers: 172/ 459 = 37.47%



Wat

Originally posted by lemdog
Wat

http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/team.pl?team_id=2071

That team passes on 37% of their plays.

Originally posted by Bane
won't a 40 strength 70 tackling 15% MT CB just make teams want to run even more? I build 55+ strength 80+ tackle 15%MT CB's that still miss a fair share of tackles against pHB's.


Physical Attributes
Strength: 55.2
Speed: 156 (+55)
Agility: 93.39
Jumping: 61.97
Stamina: 61.45
Vision: 86.97
Confidence: 35.26

Football Skills
Tackling: 82.2

15% make tackle, 15 Sure Tackler and still missed more than 1 tackle a game last season.


So if the INT CB's that are being built with even less than 40 Strength and 70 tackling are the norm, and INT's are way up... why would anyone want to pass when they can just run all day?

No DvG?

Originally posted by DarkRogue
You can easily get by with 40/60 strength/tackle and have little issue making most tackles.


the problem there isnt making tackles, ive DC'd 6 str 50 tackle CB's that only miss 4 a season... the problem is they are constantly on their backs after being caked by everything in the world.

Originally posted by gbororats
the problem there isnt making tackles, ive DC'd 6 str 50 tackle CB's that only miss 4 a season... the problem is they are constantly on their backs after being caked by everything in the world.

Fair point that many like to ignore. In my exp I have to protect the int guys; i don't like more than two on my D for this reason.

Originally posted by DarkRogue
http://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/team.pl?team_id=2071

That team passes on 37% of their plays.

My data is dif

Originally posted by jdbolick

Why do you constantly argue with people who actually know things about this game when you've been a constant failure who posted about how he was going to make the WL and revolutionize it only to give up after you repeatedly failed to make it out of Pro? Pass archetype OL absolutely do not pass block better than run archetypes. It seems obvious that they should, but they don't. A pass archetype OL with tons of agility and the Max Protect VA doesn't function any better statistically in terms of hurries and sacks allowed per pass attempt than a well built run block archetype.

My o line didn't meet specs needed, so pass quality was down. Still, the stats the teams pass blocking O line was among the best in the game, maybe best. I'd guess the reason you haven't had success with the archetype is your unwillingness to admit you don't know everything and try something different.

Originally posted by evileyez
Fair point that many like to ignore. In my exp I have to protect the int guys; i don't like more than two on my D for this reason.

Lets not forget that's it's near impossible for the defense to stop the drag routes across the field and the 90 degree routes on a consistent basis.